Attending Church, purely to get to a certain school

[sleepydad3000]

They're aren't many things I feel so strongly about, but this issue is one of them. I am currently looking at schools for my daughter. I am a non religious person and my partner is a none practising Catholic, doesn't go to church at all anymore.

I personally think it's wrong on a moral level to exploit a church for 6 months or however long, just to get your child to a certain school. It's almost like, "Oh hi, yes thankyou, I've got what I needed, you'll never see me again!"

2 schools near me are both decent, 1 outstanding and 1 good (Ofsted ratings) interestingly enough, the NON Catholic school has the higher mark as of 2017.... just saying. Both schools are great in my view, religion aside. But I'd feel awful and wrong and like I was cheating or manipulating the system, just to get my girl to a certain school, and then waving bye bye to the church after, as I know for a fact, my partner and I have no intention of going to church afterwards.

Do you think that those of no faith have a right to go to a non-faith school?

Ideally, yes, those of no faith should be able to access a secular school (more fool them but that is their own mistake to make). Unfortunately, as this thread should by now have made clear, the state can’t afford that and relies on churches to subsidise its free-at-point-of-access education system.

Margot umm yes. Margot, are you trying to make this about something it's not?

If the people of a nation want faith schools or non faith schools then the government needs to find a way to make it happen no?

Or do you just want it your way, no faith schools at all?

Appropriate - to take for one's own use, to set apart for a purpose, to assign

I have consistently put forward the position that there should not be faith schools because I do not think the state has any business spending tax payers money on supporting the religious discrimination against children within education.

By asking you about your right to a faith school, I am wondering what you think other people's rights are and who should fund those and how practical they are to deliver. I don't think those are unreasonable questions to ask.

The state has never appropriated the church’s property to create schools. The church had schools. The creation of what is effectively a joint venture between church and state in no way gives either party any unnegotiated rights to take unilateral decisions over the other party’s property.

Margo - in France, faith schools also receive significant state subsidies. They are not allowed to discriminate on religious grounds when selecting pupils but they do charge (not significant) top up fees. How do you feel about that?

I believe the state appropriated church schools in 1944, in that they assigned those schools to become state funded schools. They set them apart for use by the state and to be funded by the state to provide free education, at the point of delivery, to the children of the UK.

As I have previously said, I would be interested to see how the population of the UK would feel about the churches declining to continue to provide those schools, that have been improved, expanded and supported by tax payers, should the state decide that they would no longer be able to discriminate or segregate on religious grounds.

No, that is not what happened in 1944 Margo.

I'm not in France, so what they do is up to them. However, if there are French people who want to pay fees for their child to go to a faith school, that's fine with me. Equally, if people in the UK want to pay for their child to go to a private faith school, that's fine with me too.

I object to state funded schools discriminating against children on religious grounds at the tax payers expense.

You seem to object to the Church. We can’t abolish it ;(

I believe that is what happened in the Education Act in 1944.

The Act brought what had previously been county or voluntary schools under a triangular system of educational administration: responsibility was shared between central government, which was to set national policies and allocate resources to Local Education Authorities which were to set local policies and allocated resources to schools; and the schools themselves, whose head teachers and governing bodies would set school policies and manage the resources. It categorised what had previously been voluntary schools as 'aided' (where the church had greater control) or 'controlled' (where the LEA had greater control). Aided schools were offered 50 per cent of their building and maintenance costs from state funds; controlled schools 100 per cent. (The proportion of aided school building costs funded by the taxpayer was increased to 75 per cent in 1959; to 80 per cent in 1967; to 85 per cent in 1974; and to 90 per cent in 2001.)

Which church in particular do you think I object to?

Actually, I don't object to religion or to people's faith.

I object to state funded religious discrimination against children. I think I may have said this a few times!

Margo I object to lots of things the state spends my tax money on but accept that we live in a democracy and that people have the right to ask their government to deliver what they ask for and that we must all work together. Each to their own.

Why should your believes trumps others?

LOL, my beliefs and those of all the organisations that campaign to remove state funded religious discrimination and religious segregation of children do not trump others - clearly!!!!!

What you describe, Margo, is not “appropriation”.

“I object to state funded religious discrimination against children.”

Do you also now understand that the state has no bargaining power or cash to do otherwise?

I believe the state appropriated church schools in 1944, in that they assigned those schools to become state funded schools

No they did not. Schools were given a choice and the land and buildings remained the property of the original owners. If the state had appropriated these schools they would have taken ownership.

price paid should, in my view, reflect the value and condition of the property when it was appropriated for the current use, the expenditure, upkeep, expansion, maintenance and general improvements made since

Putting aside the fact that schools were not appropriated, giving someone a grant to improve their property does not give the state any rights to that property unless this was a condition of the grant. Whatever you think it should be, the fact is that the government would have to pay the full market value of any property.

Maria If you lived in an area, as I do, where there are two secondary schools, one 'Catholic' and one secular, you would see that the Catholic School fairly reeks of money (an auditorium that would rival Aspendos, for example, and an Olympic sized indoor swimming pool) and that the secular school is rather more modestly outfitted. The children at the secular school are, in no way, let down by the state - they have what they need (actually, what they have is arguably better than I had at my private boarding school 30 years ago) but the religious school is really quite amazingly equipped. Given that the religious school does indeed get its funding from the state, but gets topped up by the Catholic Church, I do not think that the removal of the religious funding would result in disaster at all. That school would simply cope, as the other school does. If only we could measure happiness at school, rather that academic outcomes, eh? Now that would really be a measure worth taking.

How can you describe the amount of money ploughed into schools year in year out since 1944 as a grant?!!!!!

Personally, I think appropriated works, according to the definition, but it would be a shame to get derailed by semantics, so let’s say that when the state took over the funding, administration and overall education policies of what were previously voluntary schools instead.

Margo - you need to stop rewriting history and stick to the facts.

Nessy1977 - I’m not really sure what your point is.

Popping back in just to say that the State has just as much "bargaining power" and "cash" as the will of the people grant it. It's the fucking state.

Margo, maybe the state should pay back the church for all the education it provided in years before 1944?

No, longest. Bargaining power is something you have vis-à-vis your opponent in a negotiation, not something your supporters grant you. And the British people do not have endless cash reserves.

It’s amazing how often I come across this “Screw you, I’m all right Jack” attitude from Christians” It’s very strange.